Hi Shadi,
I don't understand how this is any more within the scope of EvalTF than
the previous discussion involving a commitment to respond to (or fix)
accessibility issues. Your proposed text isn't tied to the evaluation
methodology in any fashion.
I can imagine that IF the Accessibility Statement (or frankly any public
statement) explicitly referenced that the site was self-evaluated (or
hired someone else to evaluate it) following the W3C approved evaluation
methodology, then we might impose some conditions on that public
statement. But I don't see how it is appropriate to say that if a site
evaluates itself for accessibility using a particular methodology (or
worse, some 3rd party entity evaluates that site using a particular
methodology), that therefore a (potentially already existing)
Accessibility Statement must say anything in particular.
Regards,
Peter
On 8/22/2012 5:18 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> It seems that several people agree on not requiring specific timing
> for removing issues that contradict a published accessibility statement.
>
> However, do we want to least require that such (optionally provided)
> accessibility statements remain valid when they are published?
>
> How about replacing this current text:
> [[
> The website owner commits to removing any valid issues known to them
> within 10 business days;
> ]]
>
> with this new text:
> [[
> The website owner commits to ensuring the accuracy and validity of the
> accessibility statement;
> ]]
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Shadi
>
>
> On 22.8.2012 10:03, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>> Hi Peter and all
>>
>> I'm in agreement that it should not be in the scope of the EM. I was
>> replying to someone's question about open comment about the number of
>> days to allow a website owner to make corrections. Thinking about it
>> again, I think it might be better to leave this out of the scope
>> entirely, even though I advocate providing such an accessibility page.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(cs)
>> PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
>> Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
>> v.conway@ecu.edu.au<mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
>> v.conway@webkeyit.com<mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com>
>> Mob: 0415 383 673
>>
>> This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the
>> individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or
>> copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received
>> this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or
>> telephone and destroy the original message.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Peter Korn [peter.korn@oracle.com]
>> Sent: Friday, 17 August 2012 11:25 PM
>> To: Vivienne CONWAY
>> Cc: Shadi Abou-Zahra; Eval TF
>> Subject: Re: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval TF
>> review)
>>
>> Vivienne,
>>
>> I appreciate very much your opinion, and your desire of what should
>> be in the accessibility statement (that every website should have).
>> As an accessibility advocate, I appreciate the effect that might have
>> on "holding website owners feet to the fire".
>>
>> However, I simply don't see that as being in the scope of EvalTF.
>>
>> There is no "compromise" here. If the work is in scope, then we
>> should work on it. But if the work isn't in scope...
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 8/17/2012 4:26 AM, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peter & TF
>>
>> I'm of the opinion that the methodology needs to address the issue of
>> how quickly identified problems are acted upon. If there is an
>> accessibility statement (and personally I'm of the view that there
>> should be one), it should state how the website owner intends to act
>> upon problems identified by the users. I don't necessarily say that
>> we should state '10' days, or even '5' or '20'. I think though that
>> the website owner should be compelled to respond within a certain
>> number of days. I agree that some changes as we discussed, will take
>> longer to fix in very large websites.
>>
>> Can we compromise and say that problems identified must be responded
>> to within a number of days (maybe 10, maybe not), and that they will
>> be dealt with as quickly as possible, with the complainant kept
>> apprised of the remediation efforts?
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(cs)
>> PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
>> Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
>> v.conway@ecu.edu.au<mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au><mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au><mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
>>
>> v.conway@webkeyit.com<mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com><mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com><mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com>
>>
>> Mob: 0415 383 673
>>
>> This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the
>> individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or
>> copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received
>> this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or
>> telephone and destroy the original message.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Peter Korn [peter.korn@oracle.com<mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>]
>> Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 11:41 PM
>> To: Shadi Abou-Zahra
>> Cc: Eval TF
>> Subject: Re: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval TF
>> review)
>>
>> Shadi,
>>
>> I recognize that it is optional. BUT... by spelling out what EvalTF
>> thinks it should contain, you are putting the weight of W3C behind
>> it, creating a sort of "sanctioned statement". This means that a
>> certain degree of care is necessary in crafting what that "sanctioned
>> statement" should be. AND because - as you note - there are many
>> statements out there presently, the (apparently intended) effect of
>> someone adopting the EvalTF methodology is that they would HAVE to
>> change their existing statement in order to conform to EvalTF or to
>> drop making any statement altogether (since EvalTF says that if there
>> is a statement, it shall be X).
>>
>> I think that is significantly coercive, and because of that, such an
>> - even optional - statement must not be prescriptive.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 8/16/2012 8:36 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Providing an accessibility statement is optional. This means that any
>> organization can continue to use its own procedures.
>>
>> The intent of this item is to avoid the many outdated and imprecise
>> statements that are frequently found on the Web today.
>>
>> As discussed today, we agreed to open an issue to continue this
>> discussion after publication. It would help to see what wording you
>> would like to have changed before publication.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Shadi
>>
>>
>> On 16.8.2012 16:48, Peter Korn wrote:
>> Hi Shadi,
>>
>> I am very uncomfortable with the proposed text in "3.5.2 Step 5.b
>> Provide an
>> Accessibility Statement (optional)". I'm particularly uncomfortable
>> with the
>> suggestion that the website owner must make a commitment to
>> address/respond/fix
>> issues brought to their attention within any specific number of
>> (business) days
>> as a condition of being an "Eval TF compliant accessibility
>> statement". I don't
>> think the draft should be published with this text as it current is.
>>
>> I think it would be OK to enumerate a suggested set of topics to be
>> addressed in
>> an optional accessibility statement (e.g. to suggest that an
>> accessibility
>> statement speak to how the website owner will respond to issues
>> brought to their
>> attention), but not more than that.
>>
>> Websites & companies may have accessibility statements already, and
>> we don't
>> want to force them to change those statements or remove them in order
>> to adopt
>> the EvalTF methodology.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 8/16/2012 6:39 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>> Dear Eval TF,
>>
>> Eric, Martijn, and I have been processing the comments from Eval TF
>> on the
>> latest Editor Draft of 30 July 2012. Please review this by *Monday 20
>> August*
>> and let us know if you have any comments or questions:
>> -
>> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730>
>>
>> Most comments seem fairly straight-forward to address with some minor
>> tweaks
>> and re-writes. Proposed resolutions for these are indicated in this
>> disposition of comments.
>>
>> Other comments primarily related to editing and writing style. This
>> might be
>> best done together with the Education and Outreach Working Group
>> (EOWG) who
>> will start getting involved when we next publish. We propose opening
>> an issue
>> for these comments to discuss them with EOWG.
>>
>> Finally, several comments will likely need further discussion by the
>> group
>> before they can be resolved effectively. We propose opening an issue
>> for each
>> of these rather than to hold up the publication.
>>
>> The editorial issues to be opened include:
>> - #2
>> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c2><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c2><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c2><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c2>
>> - #6
>> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c6><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c6><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c6><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c6>
>>
>> The substantive issues to be opened include:
>> - #5
>> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c5><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c5><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c5><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c5>
>> - #17
>> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c17><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c17><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c17><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c17>
>> - #32
>> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32>
>> - #34
>> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c34><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c34><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c34><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c34>
>> - #35
>> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c35><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c35><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c35><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c35>
>>
>> During today's teleconference we will request opening these issues.
>>
>> Best,
>> Shadi
>>
>>
>> --
>> Oracle
>> <http://www.oracle.com><http://www.oracle.com><http://www.oracle.com><http://www.oracle.com>
>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>> Green Oracle
>> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment><http://www.oracle.com/commitment><http://www.oracle.com/commitment><http://www.oracle.com/commitment>
>> Oracle is committed to
>> developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [cid:part1.05080307.02080201@oracle.com]<http://www.oracle.com><http://www.oracle.com>
>>
>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>> Phone: +1 650 5069522<tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>> [cid:part4.09000705.09050309@oracle.com]<http://www.oracle.com/commitment><http://www.oracle.com/commitment>
>> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help
>> protect the environment
>>
>> ________________________________
>> This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient
>> you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you
>> have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply
>> e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information
>> contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in
>> general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of
>> the information provided.
>>
>> CRICOS IPC 00279B
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [cid:part1.07000307.02010302@oracle.com]<http://www.oracle.com>
>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>> Phone: +1 650 5069522<tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>> [cid:part4.02010305.03060403@oracle.com]<http://www.oracle.com/commitment>
>> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help
>> protect the environment
>>
>> ________________________________
>> This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient
>> you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you
>> have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply
>> e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information
>> contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in
>> general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of
>> the information provided.
>>
>> CRICOS IPC 00279B
>>
>
--
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
developing practices and products that help protect the environment